The Context and Mission of Canadian Lutheranism Roger W
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Consensus Volume 6 | Issue 1 Article 3 1-1-1980 The context and mission of Canadian Lutheranism Roger W. Nostbakken Follow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus Recommended Citation Nostbakken, Roger W. (1980) "The onc text and mission of Canadian Lutheranism," Consensus: Vol. 6 : Iss. 1 , Article 3. Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol6/iss1/3 This Articles is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by an authorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE CONTEXT AND MISSION OF CANADIAN LUTHERANISM Roger W. Nostbakken In asserting the place and mission of the church in our nation at this point in our history, it is difficult to avoid the twin traps of generalization and parochialism. As a Lutheran Church in Canada, we need a regional, national and international per- spective. Yet we need to have an acute sense of our local, congregational and even personal responsibilities as well. Furthermore, we need to demonstrate a commit- ment to the Lutheran traditions which nourish us all and yet show a strong commit- ment to the wider community and to the nation and world in which we live. Lutherans, historically, have had a tendency to be preoccupied with the past. As a consequence, adjustment to change has often been just that, an adjustment. Yet the church ought to be not a conservative bulwark against the hostile forces of change, but itself an agent of change; indeed, not only of change but reconciliation, renewal and justice in the world. In addressing issues and setting forth opportunities, it is important that this be done in a way which both reflects and challenges your understanding of the church’s mission. We are here, after all, because we are com- mitted to try and carry forth Christ’s mission in this world, we are witnesses to Jesus Christ; we are heralds of the Gospel; we are ambassadors of the church; we are servants of those to whom we seek to minister; we are partners and co-workers with one another; we are representatives of our Brother and Lord, Jesus Christ. We call 16 Context and Mission 17 ourselves Christians but we live in this world. We must then seek with our best in- telligence to understand the world in which we live. We are called to love and min- ister to its people. We are, in Luther’s words, to be little Christs to others. THE CONTEXT OF THE CHURCH'S MISSION The church is the body of Christ, the embodiment of the family of God. Its princi- pal mission, therefore, is to be Christ in the world. It is important, however, that we know and understand the context of this mission. How can we describe the context of the church’s mission of evangelism, reconciliation and renewal? In what kind of world are we trying to be Christian? What kinds of needs surround us? How do the values of our society impinge on us as Christians and on the institution we call the church? We cannot possibly be what we are called to be unless we have some per- ception of our context. Several observations suggest themselves. Ours is an age of skepticism and failed idealism. Much of the temper of our society is that of skepticism and failed idealism. The 50’s was a decade of heady optimism following the conclusion of World War II. That optimism was fostered both by rapid growth in our churches and a burgeoning growth of technology and material prosperity. The advent of Sputnik seemed to signal an unlimited future for human advancement. The 60’s, however, with its wave of wars, political assassinations, civil rights confrontations and decline in church growth, shocked us back into a more realistic sense of our fallibility. The 70’s have seen the rapid erosion of all idealism as the heroes of the 60’s have had their clay feet exposed, and many have been toppled from their positions of power. Persons, movements, technology have all failed us and left in their wake large vacuums into which are now sweeping powerful forces of despair, facism and re- action. Three specific areas of failed idealism could be mentioned. 1. Politically. Richard Nixon, Willy Brandt and the Shah of Iran are all in certain ways symbols of the political era of the 70’s; they represent reasons why there is now such profound distrust of politicians and the political process. We have been lied to so often, and so sincerely, that we now tend not to believe anyone. These days the best and most honest of politicians are regarded with a skepticism border- ing on cynicism. The inability of any government — Western or Eastern — to stem the tide of inflation or to redress the frightful imbalance of rich and poor produces a mood approaching despair and suggests a reaching towards totalitarian measures which can force solutions on people. There is much to be uneasy about in the political climate in the world today. As a church we exist and serve in that uneasy climate. 2. Technologically. We are all very much aware of the failure of the technologi- cal dream. Actually our technology has not failed us, for it is surely a marvel; but our use of technology is on the point of destroying us. We have mass transportation, marvels in communication, and miracles in computerization; but we are also com- mitting global suicide. Industrial pollution may have reached irreversible proportions. 18 Consensus The Harrisburg incident symbolizes our tendency to destroy ourselves in the process of saving ourselves. Our mastery of technology has produced weapons now suffic- ient to annihilate the human race many times over. It is almost as if we have created monsters for our service which now have taken control of us. As a church we function in this atmosphere of apprehension. 3. Sociologicalli;. The liberal humanist dream which underlies most of the social sciences has also failed us and contributed to the prevailing mood of skepticism. The discipline of psychiatry has been seriously discredited because of its consistent failure to produce useful therapy so that it is now difficult to find anyone who has faith in it any more. Psychologists freely admit their studies have actually revealed little about the nature of man, and even less about how to treat his psychological ills. M.D.’s are no longer the white- hatted heroes we once thought they were. Our children, nurtured as they are on the deliberate deceits of the advertising world and exposed to the patronising deceits of governments, are surely among the most sophisticated and cynical people the world has ever known. Talk to any twelve year old child and you won’t find one who believes what he/she sees on television or hears in a political speech. Our emerging generation is conditioned to expect de- ceit and as a consequence shows an appalling cynicism about our social structures. This context of failed promises, deliberate deceit and shattered idealism is very much the context of our time. This is also a part of the context in which the church is called to live with integrity and to proclaim the Truth. An Age of Egocentricity 1. The “Me” Generation. There is another way of viewing our times. From the perspective of how the individual sees oneself in relation to others; this can be called an age of egocentricity. If the 1950’s was, as we suggested, a decade of optimism and the 1960’s one of flawed idealism, then the early 1970’s are what Thomas Wolfe has aptly called the “Me Generation”. What has taken place is a steady dim- inishing of the world view, a steady narrowing of perspective. Marshall MacLuhan’s Global Village idea is simply another slick slogan. Incongruously, in an age of excel- lent travel and communication, we find ourselves increasingly looking in on ourselves and isolated from others. In the 1950’s we worried about our responsibility in the world. In the 1960’s we worried about our responsibility in our nation. In the 1970’s the circle has tightened to regional, racial, ethnic, sexual and personal self-interest. Some of this, of course, has been both necessary and salutary. We need a national identity; we need racial respect; we need the riches of ethnic traditions; we need deliverance from sexual stereotypes and male chauvinism. But we get carried atvay into devastating forms of parochialism. Nowhere is this better illustrated than the advertising slogans: “You deserve the best”; “After all, I think I am worth it”; “You deserve a break today”. The mass appeals to self-indulgence, the absence of notions of sacrifice, make John F. Kennedy’s 1960 inaugural appeal to Americans to put their country’s needs ahead of their own, sound as remote and outdated as Marie Antoinette. 2. The m^th of self-fulfillment. The aspect of this myth which has most directly affected the church has been the influence of the human potentials movement. Under the guidance of such psychological gurus as Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow Context and Mission 19 and Fritz Peris even the church turned its attention to “self-fulfillment” through sen- sitivity training and other such programs. Again there was, in this movement, much that was good in its affirmation of the person and in the correction of a self-punish- ing scrupulosity. In its latter stages under the impetus of such developments as assertiveness training, E.S.T. and Robert Ringers’ “You are Number 1” philosophy, however, this movement has virtually institutionalized selfishness.